> I think that smells remarkably like ILNP ILNP specifically calls for 64-bits ID for a node. What I was suggesting is a range that can be any (64, 86, etc) based on the set prefix length. Also end users can put that ID anywhere they see fit: node, interface, port, application etc. If necessary it will be an architectural decision to recommend where exactly to put the ID.
--- On Wed, 8/20/08, Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [RRG] Renumbering... > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], rrg@psg.com > Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, 2:34 PM > Hi Peter, > > |> aggregation. For the cases that do require > aggregation, it > |would seem > |> that you have to be willing to renumber end-user > sites... > | > |That is just occurred to me: what if end users instead of > ids > |will get just a range. E.g. here is 64 least significant > bits > |for you to do whatever. Hence there is no need to support > the > |name space, users can renumber as much as they want while > SP > |could package ids with the access to those users who do > not care. > | > |Then all decisions about hierarchy and layers concentrate > on > |prefixes that will be managed along the established RIR > policies. > | > |What do you think? > > > I think that smells remarkably like ILNP. > > Tony -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg